PARTICIPATORY LOCAL GOVERNANCE IN PRACTICE:Lessons from six case studies of selected EED partners in the

Visayas and Mindanao

FINAL REPORT

By

A2D Project – Research Group for Alternatives to Development, Inc. Banilad,Cebu City

For

Task Force Participatory Local Governance for Visayas-Mindanao

January 2011

PARTICPATORY LOCAL GOVERANANCE IN PRACTICE:Lessons from six case studies of selected EED partners in the Visayas and

Mindanao

FINAL REPORT

Authors

Kaira Zoe K. Alburo, MAAloysius Mariae L. Canete, Ph.D cand.

Stephanie L. Sayson, MA student

Copy Editor

Rene Alburo

Research Team

Rene AlburoKaira Zoe Alburo, MA

Aloysius Mariae Canete, Ph.D cand.Stephanie Sayson, MA student

Fiscalina Amadora-Nolasco, Ph.D

January 2011

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the Task Force Participatory LocalGovernance for Visayas and Mindanao (TF-PLG) for commissioningthis research funded by the Church Development Service(Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst – EED).

We also acknowledge representatives of the EED partnersselected for this study for their invaluable assistance infacilitating interviews and arranging the focus groupdiscussions in their respective communities. Their cooperationhas been very essential for the success of this research.

Specifically, we would like to thank the individuals who haveplayed an important part in this study, namely, Dr. ErlindaAlburo, Jiah Sayson, Cindy Uy, Reynald Dote, Carulus RayLantion, Allein Mangubat Suan, Nancy Estolloso and Dr. OliverJimenez. We are also grateful to other individuals whom we areunable to mention but have nevertheless contributed to theaccomplishment of this report.

A2D Project Research Team

ii

DISCLAIMER

The Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst (EED) through the TaskForce-Participatory Local Governance in the Visayas and

Mindanao (TF-PLG) funded this research. However, the findings,views and recommendations contained in this research report arethose of the authors and do not necessarily represent those ofeither EED or other funders or collaborating partners. EED orTF-PLG is not responsible for the contents of this research.Any comments on the research should be addressed directly to

the authors.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT..............................................i

DISCLAIMER..................................................ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................iii

LIST OF TABLES..............................................ix

LIST OF FIGRUES.............................................x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................xi

I. INTRODUCTION.............................................1

A. Background............................................1B. Objectives............................................3C. Methodology...........................................4

1. Research Methods..................................42. Research Participants.............................63. Research Sites....................................64. Research Team.....................................7

D. Research Concerns.....................................7E. Organization of the Report............................9

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ANDCONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK....................................11

A. Participation and Governance..........................11B. From Beneficiaries to Citizens........................13C. Participatory Local Governance in the Philippines.....15D. Conceptual Framework..................................19

III. AN OVERVIEW OF SIX PARTICIPATING EEDPARTNER-NGOs IN THE VISAYAS AND MINDANAO...............24

A. GWAVE.................................................24B. HMRG..................................................26C. TUBURAN RWED..........................................27D. PAGBAG-O..............................................29E. FARDEC................................................30

iv

Page

F. IFI-VIMROD.............................................31

IV. PERCEPTIONS ON NGO/PO-LGU PARTNERSHIP: KEY INFORMANTINTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS...................33

A. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS...............................33

I. GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT..............................35

1.1 Key Informant for GWAVE...........................35On LGC and Civil Society Participation............35On the Role of NGO’s in Local Governance..........36On areas of Partnership for Local Governance......38

1.2 Key Informant for LGU of Amlan....................38On LGC and Civil Society Participation............38On the Role of NGO’s in Local Governance..........38On areas of Partnership for Local Governance......39

1.3 Key Informant for HMRG............................39On LGC and Civil Society Participation............39On the Role of NGO’s in Local Governance..........40On areas of Partnership for Local Governance......41

1.4 Key Informant for LG of Davao City................41On LGC and Civil Society Participation............41On the Role of NGO’s in Local Governance..........42On areas of Partnership for Local Governance......42

1.5 Key Informant for Tuburan RWED....................43On LGC and Civil Society Participation............43On the Role of NGO’s in Local Governance..........44On areas of Partnership for Local Governance......45

1.6 Key Informant for LGU of Mabinay..................46On LGC and Civil Society Participation............46On the Role of NGO’s in Local Governance..........47On areas of Partnership for Local Governance......47

2. SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND AGRARIAN REFORM.........47

2.1 Key Informant for PAGBAG-O........................47On LGC and Civil Society Participation............48On the Role of NGO’s in Local Governance..........48On areas of Partnership for Local Governance......48

v

Page

2.2 Key Informant for FARDEC.........................49On LGC and Civil Society Participation...........49On the Role of NGO’s in Local Governance.........50On areas of Partnership for Local Governance.....50

2.3 Key Informant for LGU of Aloguinsan..............51On LGC and Civil Society Participation...........51On the Role of NGO’s in Local Governance.........52On areas of Partnership for Local Governance.....53

2.4 Key Informant for IFI-VIMROD.....................53On LGC and Civil Society Participation.............53On the Role of NGO’s in Local Governance...........54On areas of Partnership for Local Governance.......54

2.5 Key Informant for LGU of Alcantara...............55On LGC and Civil Society Participation...........55On the Role of NGO’s in Local Governance.........55On areas of Partnership for Local Governance.....55

3. SECTION SUMMARY FOR KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS.......56

B. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS...............................59

I. GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT.............................61

1.1 FGD for MAVA.....................................61On establishing the organization.................61On engagement with LGU’s.........................64On Problems with Partnership.....................64On Sustainability of the Organization............65

1.2 FGD for MR GAD...................................65On establishing the organization.................65On engagement with LGU’s.........................67On Problems with Partnership.....................68On Sustainability of the Organization............68

1.3 FGD for SIBAWA...................................69On establishing the organization.................69On engagement with LGU’s.........................70On Problems with Partnership.....................71On Sustainability of the Organization............71

vi

Page

2. SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND AGRARIAN REFORM........71

2.1 FGD for SUFARMPUCO...............................71On establishing the organization.................72On engagement with LGU’s.........................73On Problems with Partnership.....................73On Sustainability of the Organization............74

2.2 FGD for SRFA.....................................74On establishing the organization.................74On engagement with LGU’s.........................75On Problems with Partnership.....................76On Sustainability of the Organization............76

2.3 FGD for NAMAMA...................................76On establishing the organization.................76On engagement with LGU’s.........................77On Problems with Partnership.....................77On Sustainability of the Organization............78

3. SECTION SUMMARY FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS.........78

V. MAPPING OUT OF PLG PRACTICES EMPLOYED BY PARTICIPATING EEDPARTNER..................................................81

A. GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT................................81

1. GWAVE: PLG Practices in the Municipality ofAmlan, Negros Oriental............................81Areas of Engagement...............................83PLG Strategies Employed...........................84Outcomes of Engagement............................85

2. HMRG: PLG Practices in Davao City, DavaoDel Sur...........................................86Areas of Engagement...............................87PLG Strategies Employed...........................88Outcomes of Engagement............................89

3. TUBURAN-RWED: PLG Practices in theMunicipality of Mabinay, Negros Oriental..........90Areas of Engagement...............................91PLG Strategies Employed...........................91

vii

Page

Outcomes of Engagement............................93

B. SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND AGRARIAN REFORM...........93

1. PAGBAG-O: PLG Practices in the Municipalityof Mabinay, Negros Oriental.......................93Areas of Engagement...............................94PLG Strategies Employed...........................95Outcomes of Engagement............................96

2. FARDEC: PLG Practices in the Municipality inAloguinsan, Cebu..................................96Areas of Engagement...............................97PLG Strategies Employed...........................98Outcomes of Engagement............................99

3. IFI-VIMROD: PLG Practices in the Municipalityof Alcantara, Cebu................................99Areas of Engagement...............................100PLG Strategies Employed...........................101Outcomes of Engagement............................102

C.DISCUSSION.............................................103

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................109

ENDNOTES....................................................118

BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................119

APPENDICES..................................................122

APPENDIX A: PROGRAM MATRICES OF SELECTED EED PARTNERS.....123

APPENDIX B: STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY PARTICIPATINGEED PARTNER NGO’s.........................134

APPENDIX C: PHOTO DOCUMENTATION...........................136

PLATE 1.......................................136

PLATE 2.......................................136

PLATE 3.......................................137

viii

Page

PLATE 4.......................................137

PLATE 5.......................................138

PLATE 6.......................................138

PLATE 7.......................................139

PLATE 8.......................................139

PLATE 9.......................................140

PLATE 10......................................140

APPENDIX D: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE QUESTIONS........141

APPENDIX E: KEY INFORMANT GUIDE INTERVIEW QUESTIONSFOR LGU.......................................142

APPENDIX F: KEY INFORMANT GUIDE INTERVIEW QUESTIONSFOR NGO.......................................144

APPENDIX G: MEMORANDOM OF AGREEMENT: GWAVE AND MAVA.......146

APPENDIX H: RESOLUTION NO.013-C: ALLOCATION OF FUNDSFOR THE FEDERATION OF WOMEN IN PANACANDAVAO CITY....................................147

APPENDIX I: ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE DOERS OF VIOLENCE TOUNDERGO COUNSELING AND EDUCATIONAL TRAININGREGARDING GBV.................................148

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 1. Selected Socio-Demographic Characteristicsof KI Respondents..................................35

Table 2. Socio-Demographic Characteristicsof FGD Participants................................62

Table 3. Enabling and Constraining ConditionsOf NGO/PO-LGU Engagements.........................108

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Conceptual Diagram...............................23

xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIDS - Acquired Immunodeficiency SyndromeBATMAN – Barangay Training and ManagementBBGC – Barangay – Bayan Governance Consortium

BCPC BCPC - Barangay Council of the Protection ofChildren

BPO – Barangay Protection OrderCARP - Comprehensive Agrarian Reform ProgramCBED – Community Based Enterprise DevelopmentCERNET – Community Empowerment Resource NetworkCHO - City Health OfficeCLOA - Certification of Land Ownership AwardCPP-NPA – Communist Party of the Philippines –

New People’s ArmyCSSDO - City Social Service and Development OfficeCSO – Civil Society OrganizationFARDEC – Central Visayas Farmers Development CenterDA – Department of AgricultureDAR – Department of Agrarian ReformDILG - Department of Interior and Local GovernmentDOLE – Department of Labour and EmploymentDTI – Department of Trade and IndustryEED – Evengelischer EntwicklungsdienstFFF – Free Farmers FederationFGD – Focus Group DiscussionGARB - Genuine Agrarian Reform BillGBV – Gender based ViolenceGWAVE – Gender Watch Against Violence and

ExploitationHIV - Human Immunodeficiency VirusHMRG – Health Management and Research Group

FoundationIB – Institutional BuildingIDESA – Indigenous Development Education and Social

AssistanceIFI - Iglesia Filipina IndependienteIGDD - Integrated Gender and Development DivisionIRA - Internal Revenue AllotmentKI - Key InformantKKK - Kahugpungan sa Katawhan alang sa KalamboanLDC - Local Development CouncilLG - Local GovernanceLGC - Local Government CodeLGU - Local Government Unit

xii

LSBs - Local Special BodiesMAVA - Men Against Violence in AmlanMAO - Municipal Agriculture OfficeMDG - Millennium Development GoalMR GAD - Men’s Responsibilities in Gender and

DevelopmentNAMAMA - Nagkahi-usang Maguuma sa ManggaNDC-UCCP - Negros District Conference of the United

Church of Christ in the PhilippinesNGO - Non-Government OrganizationNISARD - Negros Island Sustainable Agriculture

for Rural DevelopmentPAGBAG-O - Panaghugpong sa mga Gagmayng Grupo sa

Oriental NegrosPI - Principal InvestigatorPLG – Participatory Local GovernancePO - People’s OrganizationPNP - Philippines National PoliceRH – Reproductive HealthSIBAWA – Sitio Bangkal Women’s AssociationSRMD – Sustainable Resource Management and

DevelopmentSTEP-UP - Stop Trafficking and Exploitation of People

through Unlimited PotentialsSTI - Sexually Transmitted InfectionsSUFAR – Samac United Farmers for Agrarian ReformSUFARMPUCO - Samac United Farmers for Agrarian

Reform Multi – Purpose CoopTB TB - Tuberculosis

TESDA – Technical Education and Skills DevelopmentAuthority

TF-PLG – Task Force- Participatory Local GovernanceTuburan-RWED - Tuburan for Rural Women Empowerment and

DevelopmentUCCP – United Church of Christ in the PhilippinesVAW – Violence Against WomenVAWC – Violence against Women and ChildrenVIMROD – Visayas-Mindanao Regional Office for

DevelopmentWEALTH - Women and Water, Environment and

Education, Agricultural Services,Livelihood, Tourism and Health

1

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background

In the Philippines, civil society organizations (CSOs) havealways been at the forefront in pushing for a participatory,“bottom-up” approach to local development. After many years ofcentralized “top-down” decision-making, the government passedthe Local Government Code (LGC) in 1991. The LGC is a systemof governance creating local institutional structures thatpromote not only greater fiscal autonomy and authority in thedelivery of basic services, but more importantly, it allowscitizens to participate in the planning, decision-making, andimplementation of government programs and services. Thiscondition has created opportunities for forging partnershipsbetween local government units (LGUs) and non-governmentorganizations and grassroots organizations at the communitylevel.

In 2006, the Task Force Participatory Local Governance forVisayas-Mindanao (TF-PLG), funded by EvangelischerEntwicklungsdienst (EED), a development organization of theProtestant Churches in Germany, was established. Its aim is toenhance participatory local governance practices among EEDpartner non-government organizations (NGOs) in two regions ofthe Philippines: Visayas and Mindanao. Convened by CommunityEmpowerment Resource Network (CERNET), TF-PLG membershipsinclude 11 other NGOs, namely: 1) Brokenshire IntegratedHealth Ministries; 2) Health Management and Research GroupFoundation; 3)Southern Christian College; 4) Gender WatchAgainst Violence and Exploitation; 5) Justice and PeaceCenter, Silliman University; 6)Panaghugpong sa mga Gagmayng

2

Grupo sa Oriental Negros (PAGBAG-O); 7)Quidan Kaisahan;8)Tuburan for Rural Women Empowerment and Development; 9)College of Maasin; 10) Central Visayas Farmers DevelopmentCenter; and 11) IFI (Philippine Independent Church) - VisayasMindanao Regional Office for Development.

Among other things, the main role of TF-PLG is “to plan,coordinate and implement” the activities of EED partner-NGOsin the Visayas and Mindanao (Colongon 2009:1). Employingparticipatory local governance (PLG), EED partner-NGOs haveengaged with local government units as a development strategyin order to empower and promote citizen participation in theirpartner communities. However, the experiences and outcomes ofthese partnerships have not been documented and assessed (TF-PLG Proposal). In order to address this concern, in 2008 and2009 workshops, TF-PLG members identified two importantactivities necessary for the success of their PLG work: firstwas a need for documentation of PLG experiences among TF-PLG;and second was to further develop, enrich, and sustain PLGwork in their partner communities or municipalities (TF-PLGProposal).

As a result, in June 2010, A2D Project, a non-stock non-profitresearch group for alternatives to development based in CebuCity, was contracted by TF-PLG to undertake a research onparticipatory local governance practices among selected EEDpartners in the Visayas and Mindanao. Its aim is to documentPLG experiences of selected EED partner-NGOs in the Visayasand Mindanao in order to understand the factors that hinder(or facilitate) the outcomes of PLG practices in the areaswhere they have had partnerships with LGUs or communities. Thepremise of this study is that the success of PLG depends onhow well the local government units are open to workcollaboratively with civil society organizations on the one

3

hand, and on how well EED partner-NGOs have tapped theinstitutional mechanisms provided for by the Local GovernmentCode, on the other. This research is a contribution to see howthe relationship of LGUs with CSOs can be improved by lookingat the dynamics of participation at the local level.

The findings of this report are based on a research conductedby the A2D Project research team from July to October 2010.This report presents the practices of six selected EEDpartner-NGOs and therefore should not be used as basis forgeneralization of PLG practices of all EED partners. Instead,readers of this report are advised to assess each casepresented here as unique and context-specific based onindividual case experiences and its concomitant conditions.Finally, this report hopes to learn from the lessonsgenerated by the experiences of six EED partner-NGOs in theprocess of carrying out participatory local governance.

B. Objectives

The general objective of this study is to first investigatethe conditions required in order to promote productive andeffective participatory local governance practices betweenselected EED partners, local government units, and community-based people’s organizations; and second, as a result of this,to learn from the lessons and experiences of selected EEDpartner-NGOs, in the hope of identifying practices that needto be improved, sustained, or replicated.

Specific objectives are as follows:1. To determine the extent to which participatory localgovernance is understood and practiced by selected EEDpartners, their beneficiary-communities and local government

4

units. Data on their views, opinions, and perspectives onparticipatory local governance were elicited in order tobetter understand the level of knowledge selected EED partnershave on participatory local governance. Data on PLG practiceswere gathered to provide a picture of how PLG was applied byEED partners.2. To map out the practices/factors/conditions thatfacilitate or hinder participatory local governance betweenselected EED partners, their beneficiary-communities and localgovernment units. Data on the process of how participatorylocal governance as well as the methods employed to achieveparticipatory local governance were identified.3. To identify and appraise benchmarks for best practices ofparticipatory local governance employed by selected EEDpartners, their beneficiary-communities and local governmentunits. Results of this objective will be used to recommendpractices that need to be replicated and areas that requireimprovements.

C. Methodology

The methods employed in data gathering for this study weremainly qualitative. These methods include key informant (KI)interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs) and participantobservation. Content analysis of documents put out byselected EED Partner-NGOs was used to complement the methodsmentioned above. Each of these methods will be discussed inmore detail in the next sub-section.

1. Research Methods

This research consists of three phases. The first phasecovers the pre-fieldwork preparation. This includesrecruitment of assistants, a review of literature, and a

5

series of workshops among members of the research team toformulate research instruments for key informant interviewsand focus group discussions. Afterwards, the instruments werepre-tested in the municipality of Alacantara, Cebu. The pre-test site was selected on the basis of willingness of NGOs tohost the pre-testing, time, accessibility, and resources.

The second phase involves four (4) months of field researchfor data collection in four (4) municipalities and one (1)city located in the provinces of Cebu, Negros Oriental, andDavao Del Sur respectively. A total of six focus groupdiscussions were conducted in areas where selected EEDpartner-NGOs had partner communities; five (5) of which weredone at the barangay level and one (1) carried out at themunicipal level. Key Informant (KI) interviews were alsoconducted among NGO representatives, local governmentofficials and members of peoples’ organizations. Moreover,participant observation was used to observe the conduct ofdiscussions and trainings in situ. All interviews and FGDswere administered by the A2D Project research team and tape-recorded after consent was obtained from researchparticipants.The third phase of the research involves a review and analysisof documents both published and unpublished reports producedby six selected EED partner-NGOs. Aside from this, aquestionnaire in matrix form was administered covering programobjectives, activities, timeframe, collaborating partners andstatus of the projects. Here, the objective is to understandhow participatory local governance was articulated in thepolicies and programs of the selected EED partner-NGOs.

6

2. Research Participants

Out of the 12 EED partner-NGOs in the Visayas and Mindanao, asample of six (6) NGOs was purposively selected. The studyparticipants were: 1) Health Management and Research GroupFoundation; 2) Gender Watch Against Violence and Exploitation;3) Panaghugpong sa mga Gagmayng Grupo sa Oriental Negros; 4)Tuburan for Rural Women Empowerment and Development; 5)Central Visayas Farmers Development Center; and 6) IFI(Philippine Independent Church) – Visayas-Mindanao RegionalOffice for Development. The participants of this study werechosen based on two program foci: 1) gender and developmentand 2) sustainable agriculture and agrarian reform. Each ofthese foci was represented by three study participants of thesample size. Members of the community-based partnerorganizations of selected EED partner-NGOs were recruited toparticipate in the focus group discussions. To validate theresults of FGDs, one member of the PO was randomly selected tobe interviewed separately. In addition, representatives ofthe municipal/city government were interviewed to understandlocal governance from the perspective of LGU officials. Then,these data were validated through interviews with selectedbarangay officials. A description of each participating NGOwill be provided in more detail in chapter three.

3. Research Sites

The study was undertaken in four (4) municipalities and one(1) city in three (3) provinces, viz: Cebu, Negros Oriental,and Davao Del Sur. Cebu and Negros belong to the Visayasregion while Davao Del Sur is in the Mindanao region. InCebu, two municipalities located in the southwest coast wereincluded in the study: Alcantara and Aloguinsan; while inNegros Oriental, the municipalities of Mabinay and Amlan were

7

selected. Davao was the only city to be included in thisstudy. These areas were selected on the basis of thefollowing criteria: 1) the level of engagement of studyparticipants with local government units; 2) program focus ofstudy participants; and; 3) presence of community-basedpeople’s organizations or programs.

4. Research Team

The research team was composed of research fellows of A2Dproject and a research assistant. The Principal Investigator(PI) has a degree in development studies with a specializationin gender and development while the co-investigators of thestudy include two anthropologists with specialization in urbandevelopment and reproductive health as well as an historianwith extensive experience in social science research. Theresearch assistant has a background and training in biology.

D. Research Concerns

A number of challenges have been encountered in the conduct ofthis research. First, due to budgetary constraints, theresearch design was limited to a qualitative, case studydesign. It would have been good to employ a triangulationstrategy for data collection in this study as baseline datausing survey would be ideally important before in-depth casestudies are identified. As a result of this, the researchteam had tapped the convenor of TF-PLG to identify, inconsultation with the research team, the EED partner NGOschosen to participate in the study, given that the latter hadextensive knowledge about the PLG experiences of EED partnersin the Visayas and Mindanao.

8

Second, because of miscommunication between TF-PLG members,there was a misconstruance between the research conducted byA2D Project and the in-house study that was conducted earlierby TF-PLG. Participants of this study, especially somepersonnel of EED partner-NGOs, assumed that this research wasa replication of the earlier in-house study, resulting inconfusion and misunderstanding that, in turn, affected somehowthe level of cooperation of some study participants involvedin the study. Moreover, this misunderstanding was aggravatedby the fact that the assigned coordinator of TF-PLG had notproperly communicated the objectives of this study to theparticipants, making it difficult for the research team to getthe cooperation needed for this research.

Thirdly, as a result of miscommunication, the research teamencountered uneasiness during the conduct of the focus groupdiscussions in the community due to the presence of somepersonnel of EED partner-NGOs. While their assistance wasimportant in organizing the focus group discussions, theirpresence during the FGD had somehow affected the conduct ofthe FGD, considering that the FGD participants were at thesame time the beneficiaries of their programs and services.In addition, the desired criteria of participants of FGD werenot fully met in some cases due to a conflict between theschedules of target participants and the dates set for theFGD. Furthermore, while participant observation could havestrengthened the results of the study, it was impossible to dothis in all meetings or trainings considering resources andtime limitations. The weather condition in one focus groupdiscussion also affected the conduct of the interview as heavydownpour made it difficult to communicate with therespondents. It should also be mentioned here that thegeographic scope and breadth of the study, aggravated by

9

budget constraints, posed a serious limitation to the researchdesign.

E. Organization of the Report

This report is organized into six chapters. The first chapterprovides the reader with a general background to the reportincluding the objectives of the research, methodology and someconcerns that the research team encountered in the process ofcarrying out the research project. Chapter 2 covers a reviewof the literature on participatory local governance and theconceptual framework utilized for this study. The reviewfocuses in particular on the notion “participation” in thecontext of the role of civil society in governance anddevelopment practice as well as the state of participatorylocal governance in the Philippines. Chapter 2 ends with aconceptual framework and a diagram drawing thefactors/conditions that facilitate or hinder participatorylocal governance. The third chapter of this report providesan overview of the six case studies presented in this reportdescribing their aims and objectives, programs and servicesand their partner local government units and communities aswell. The research data gathered from interviews and focusgroups discussions are presented in Chapters 4 and 5respectively. Chapter 4 discusses the perceptions, views andopinions of research participants on participatory governance.Each section of this chapter is followed by a summarysynthesizing the major findings and observations of the study.Chapter 5 maps out PLG practices of the six cases focusing onthe areas of engagement, the strategies employed and outcomesof NGO/PO-LGU engagement. This chapter provides an analysisof the factors/conditions that hinder or facilitate CSOparticipation in local governance. The report concludes with

10

Chapter 6 highlighting the major findings of the study, thegeneral lessons learned and recommendations.